Fair enough, I suppose—though supporting research, science, and technology seems like a pretty important part of the entrepreneurial agenda. The Democratic platform also supports stronger antitrust enforcement, which is good for entrepreneurs, as well as a promise to make it easier to start up small businesses. And infrastructure is important for entrepreneurs too, so let’s not disparage that. Also: guaranteed access to health care.

The Republican platform is still something of a mystery, but in 2012 its economic growth plan mostly focused on lowering taxes; passing a Balanced Budget Amendment; getting back on the gold standard; and letting the unfettered free market handle home mortgages (!). If we actually did all this stuff, it would probably crush economic growth for decades. Even with all its faults, anyone who cares about entrepreneurs really ought to prefer the Democratic Party platform to the Republican mess.

But hey, it’s not just me pointing this stuff out. My original post quoted Bill Galston of Brookings. Then there is this new Greg Ip column in the WSJ:

Democrats have always been preoccupied with income distribution and poverty. Nonetheless, under President Bill Clinton they came to accept that growth was the most effective stimulant for middle-class incomes. “Only a thriving economy, a strong manufacturing base, and growth in creative new enterprise can … meet the nation’s pressing human and social needs,” its 1992 platform declared.

As recently as last year, Hillary Clinton, now the party’s presumptive nominee, titled a speech the “Growth and Fairness Economy.” Note the order: growth, then fairness. But the tenacious campaign of her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, demonstrates that her party’s impassioned foot-soldiers care much more about fairness than growth. Bill Galston, a former adviser to Mr. Clinton now at the Brookings Institution, notes how little growth figures in this year’s draft platform, in which Mr. Sanders’ acolytes were heavily involved.

Indeed, it mentions economic or job growth just seven times, down from 12 times in the 2012 platform. It does, however, mention inequality or the wealth gap 11 times, up from twice in 2012. It wants to more than double the minimum wage to $15, which even Democratic economists worry will hurt low-skilled employment. It calls for a financial transactions tax and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations as much to redress inequality as to fund numerous expanded social programs.

At the very least Kevin and I agree on no gold standard, no BBA + more science research,upgraded infrastructure. I’ll get back to him on the anti-trust stuff.

That said, let’s get down to brass tacks: The reason that neither platform has a lot to say about productivity growth is that no one really knows how to boost productivity growth. Democrats can pretend that a $15 minimum wage will do it, and Republicans can pretend that tax cuts for the rich will do it, but this is just random burbling.

Technological innovation is the key to productivity growth — though even that requires some caveats — and nobody really has a good model of how to spark lots of technological innovation. Hell, we barely even agree about what technological innovation is. Does Facebook count? A new headphone jack on the iPhone 7? Tesla cars with autopilot? Pokémon Go?

As soon as we agree on the best way to spur technological innovation, then I’ll expect our politicians to support it. Until then, I think we’re expecting too much of our party platforms if we want them to solve problems that nobody yet knows how to solve.